Everton's proposed move to a purpose-built ground at Walton Hall Park was a central theme of last night's Annual General Meeting at the Philharmonic Hall, with Elstone outlining its importance, in his view, to the club's future.
Describing it as a "game changer" in terms of Everton FC's quest to bridge the commercial gap between itself and rival clubs like Tottenham, Liverpool and what has emerged as a new big four comprising of the two Manchester clubs, Chelsea and Arsenal, Elstone said that no further progress can be made without "a true partnership" with the local council.
The Chief Executive announced that £2.5m had been ring-fenced for the planning application once a proposal had been completed and approved for the site but he admitted that funding for the scheme would be "challenging" and the onus could not fall solely on Everton.
"We have offered a solution which will offer cash, and social development [to the council]," he told shareholders. "The onus cannot just be on the club; we have to do it in partnership."
The Mayor provided an initial response via a tweet during the AGM saying that if the club is saying it is ready to move forward he was "looking forward to receiving [Everton's] planning and financial proposals tomorrow," but has since put out a more detailed statement today.
In it Anderson expressed that he "was disappointed that people were left with the impression that the council and other partners were not fully in support or part of a true partnership.
“As Mayor of the city, I wish to set straight some of the issues which were not communicated to last night’s meeting.
“Some people seem to be forgetting that it is not the job of the council to finance and deliver a major regeneration scheme of the type proposed, including a potential new stadium for Everton Football Club. Nobody should be in any doubt about the horrendous financial situation that the council is facing.
“Let me re-iterate, we would welcome a regeneration scheme to consider but the fact is, at the moment, there isn’t one. That is why there is no real progress to report.
“It is sad that Everton FC chose to question mine and the council’s integrity and commitment publicly. As a city we have helped Everton with Finch Farm and took the controversial decision to support a regeneration project with a stadium on Walton Hall Park. The evidence of our commitment to supporting Everton is there for all to see.
“As Mayor I am totally committed to helping, within reason, this project if it meets the wider regeneration needs of the area or indeed any other solution the club may propose.
"I await sight of those plans,” Anderson concluded.
Quotes sourced from Liverpool Echo
Reader Comments (135)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 24/11/2015 at 19:49:57
2 Posted 24/11/2015 at 20:02:54
What would be gained by that for EFC? I don't get it.
3 Posted 24/11/2015 at 20:05:06
What's happened to enabling partners such as Tesco, Bob? Yeah, right they won't be building out-of-town retail monstrosities anymore.
4 Posted 24/11/2015 at 20:08:16
5 Posted 24/11/2015 at 20:08:23
Get rid of him immediately. He was going on blaming the council for this and that when in reality we haven't submitted any plans or evenÃ‚Â demonstrated that we can afford this project.
This looks increasingly like a pipe dream by a desperate and increasingly rudderless board. Kenwright is seriously ill hopefully he makes a full recovery Woods is just a mute walrus (a chocolate teapot is more useful and could do a better job), and Earl who couldn't be arsed turning up and doesn't care a jot about the club he has a shareholding in.
As for Elstone, he is totally unfit to be CEO of this club, he is incompetant and he has to go at once. God help us if he's Kenwright's heir apparent. He probably is when you see who the other cronies around him are.
Didn't the Ian Ross emails say that no-one other than Kenwright and Bob himself think he was capable of doing the job? Well clearly those emails are spot-on in that regard because he is clueless and a total fraud. Did you see the plan they 'came up' with? Embarrassing and amateurish: 'Be a club', 'Be better than our rivals', etc. Honestly, it looked like a child had come up with it.
Bumbling, incompetent amateurs. This project is essentially dead. It's a pipe dream.
6 Posted 24/11/2015 at 20:10:44
7 Posted 24/11/2015 at 20:18:38
Elstone's comments are ridiculous, in a time when the council are being squeezed financially to the extent they are cutting key services to the bone, to come out and try to put the issue why we haven't moved forward on the council is wrong.
This makes the Kings Dock debacle even more unforgivable.
8 Posted 24/11/2015 at 20:19:26
They should work together behind closed doors, respecting mutual confidentiality, or else shut it down and stop wasting everyone's time. The facts remain that both the council and the club have little leeway with regard to raising hard cash. That said, at the same time that EFC's turnover has increased by 50%, the council's support from central government grant has gone down by as much. Doesn't Elstone read the papers?
LCC simply cannot invest money they don't have. What they can do is invest the land bank, in return for a rent that gives local ratepayers a return on their land. Depending upon the other infrastructure assets being considered for the wider scheme... schools, shops, health facilities etc, there may be central government capital pots which could be drawn on...
But again, just read the papers. Large supermarkets have run for the hills. The reality is that both the Etihad and Olympic Stadium were only built with massive taxpayer subsidy due to the associated major world sporting events. In the absence of a similar 'draw', the club have to be the party that draws in the finance, or other stakeholders who can add bricks to a wall that has the prospect of combining to create a house.
I for one won't be holding my breath.
9 Posted 24/11/2015 at 20:23:05
Well that argument's meaningless. I want an Everton to be proud of, not rotting away in a wooden dilapidated stadium.
Goodison is like Stoke's old Victoria Ground, and they left it in 1997 we will still be at Goodison with our crumbling Bullens and many restricted views in 2025. We are a complete laughing stock, it's embarrassing.
10 Posted 24/11/2015 at 20:26:36
As an Evertonian I feel embarrassed that the club had not even an outline plan to show Liverpool council.
- Identify a site.
- Prepare plans.
- Approach your potential partners.
I honestly would have thought that EFC would have had a model to present not only to LCC but also to any other would be partners.
It's not for Joe Anderson to run around doing Robert Elstone's job, God knows the Mayor has enough on his plate dealing with this government.
I've no doubt that Liverpool council would welcome a partnership that would generate housing and business in the Walton area but in today's fiscal climate they would have to be presented with a sure fire plan.
11 Posted 24/11/2015 at 20:30:53
This Council has cut Children's services, Adult Services, Social Services, Education to name but a few. Just why would a cash-poor local authority fund a cash-rich Premier Leagues dream of a new stadium?
Not a vote winner, that, Mr Elstone; back to the drawing board. Three Stadium attempts... three failures.
13 Posted 24/11/2015 at 20:49:31
Well, I've one question for those people. Who was it who came up with this latest fiasco? It certainly wasn't the fans who said "we expect to have planning permission in place for the whole site by late summer, early autumn 2015."
It wasn't the supporters who said "IT problems" were holding up the Everton Place development.
It wasn't the supporters who wasted millions on a doomed scheme to take us to Kirkby.
It wasn't the supporters who missed on the greatest opportunity to build a world class waterfront stadium, which would have seen us the club become a major European force once again.
So, before anyone labels the critics as 'negative' or 'anti-board', they may do well to remember who lit all these fires in the first place!
14 Posted 24/11/2015 at 20:59:33
Let's face facts: they have no good reason to provide state-of-the-art facilities to a cash-poor fan-base. Unfortunately the damage done to the club long-term will impact on future generations of Evertonians and those responsible will have moved on believing that they couldn't have done any more to help or aid the club in what were very difficult times.
15 Posted 24/11/2015 at 21:04:17
It's like bluffing at poker with a pair of twos with your cards already face up for all the world to see.
Joe Anderson mocked Elstone's statement in a Tweet last night before the newspapers rolled off the presses this morning, tartly commenting he looked forward to seeing Everton's planning and financial proposals tomorrow (ie - today).
As expected, he has now blown further holes in Elstone's claim. Effectively, he totally exposes Elstone's comments last night as a sham and of course, Elstone has further offended the local authority we need very much onside to have any hope of this succeeding.
Even the most stalwart defenders of the EFC board must question their strategy and competence on this single issue. Having had so much time to prepare for the AGM, THIS is the best they could come up with in relation to the WHP proposal? An undiplomatic transfer of blame to a vital partner, with no evidence of even the simplest, back-of-an-envelope planning or financial proposal...?
I repeat ... I just don't get it...
16 Posted 24/11/2015 at 21:04:21
I don't live in or near the city so I may be completely missing something but surely the Council needs to take the lead role in developing or commissioning development of a strategic regeneration framework/plan for the WHP area, pulling together key partners, working with local people and so forth...
Or is this just a football stadium, in which case I can understand Mr Anderson's position?
17 Posted 24/11/2015 at 21:09:20
A few million quid could turn the site into one of the best stadiums in the country instead of the multi millions it would cost to move house completely.
I've said it before, unless and until some success in cups and league is forthcoming, we will still be unable to fill Goodison, let alone a hugely expensive white elephant.
18 Posted 24/11/2015 at 21:09:58
19 Posted 24/11/2015 at 21:15:10
There's nowhere near enough information out there for you to form these views, just a small collection of soundbites from people posturing for position.
What if, for example, the discussions have reached something of an impasse, and the AGM comments actually helped to push through that by putting something out there? That would make it an astute move. Or maybe we are indeed run by schysters, lying in public and being caught out within minutes.
This isn't us applying for a building permit for an extension to the house. It's a regeneration project that is important for the city.
20 Posted 24/11/2015 at 21:21:51
I can appreciate what you mean and there is merit in what you say; however, the common denominator in every failed scheme is the same people, and it isn't those currently working for Liverpool City Council.
I would argue that Mr Elstone, similarly to Mr Kenwright, struggles when he is out of his personal comfort zone and that showed itself in a lack of tact in Mr Elstone's utterances last night.
If Mr Anderson hadn't have let the cat out of the bag earlier this year, the smoke and mirrors pantomime would have continued for a lot longer and we the fans would have been none the wiser.
21 Posted 24/11/2015 at 21:29:45
22 Posted 24/11/2015 at 21:39:41
23 Posted 24/11/2015 at 21:43:12
24 Posted 24/11/2015 at 21:49:24
25 Posted 24/11/2015 at 21:54:46
26 Posted 24/11/2015 at 22:01:37
Unfortunately, he mirrors the incompetence shown by this board over many years and that is why his job is safe. I'm chuffed to bits that Anderson has called him out and exposed him for the fool (and liar) he is.
27 Posted 24/11/2015 at 22:04:40
There's a very good reason that your very reasonable suggestion will never happen under this regime; the reason is they could begin redevelopment immediately with the full cooperation of the council which would mean that the board would have to support it financially by making an investment...
Something they won't do as it would be similar to building an extension on a council house for them. Far better to continually talk about undeliverable projects, ones that are paid for or partially paid for by someone else which experience tells you doesn't work.
28 Posted 24/11/2015 at 22:07:42
Either Elstone or Anderson are lying.
Although there is a third option ... they are both lying!
Let me lay out again here what both have said in the last 24 hours.
Elstone categorically said at last night's AGM:
* There hasn't been a lack of progress on EFC's part.
* EFC is NOT asking anyone for money.
* EFC have offered a solution which will offer cash and social development to the council.
* Elstone considers the onus cannot just be on the club. They need a partnership.
* EFC have worked hard to progress the plans.
* EFC need confirmation of the City Council's partnership.
* A new stadium is a challenging prospect, but until EFC get a real true partnership with Liverpool Council it will be hard to do.
* The Mayor says the onus is on Everton to present plans for WHP.
* This is a regeneration project, a vision for North Liverpool that includes a stadium. Elstone considers (at the moment) the council doesn't see it like that.
Joe Anderson by contrast considers certain things were not communicated at the AGM, namely:
* It is not the job of the council to finance and deliver a major regeneration scheme of the type proposed, including a potential new stadium for Everton Football Club.
* The council would welcome a regeneration scheme to consider but the FACT is (my emphasis), at the moment, there isn't one, so there is no real progress to report.
* Anderson is sad EFC chose to question his and the council's integrity and commitment publicly, noting they helped Everton with Finch Farm and took the controversial decision to support a regeneration project with a stadium on Walton Hall Park.
* He is totally committed to helping this project if it meets the wider regeneration needs of the area or indeed any other solution the club may propose... BUT! (And it's a big but...), Anderson concludes:
"I await sight of those plans."
So on the one hand you have Elstone saying EFC's have progressed the plans, that they are not asking anyone for money, but have offered a solution which will offer cash, and social development to the council.
And on the other you have the City Mayor saying he awaits sight of those plans.
Everton could torpedo Anderson's claims NOW! Any time they like, by presenting the plans and financial proposals Elstone claimed last night EFC have 'progressed.'
So, Elstone and EFC ... win the PR war. Present them.
Or ... horrors of horrors ... they are no plans to present.
I repeat again what I said in an earlier post ... I just don't 'get' Elstone's posturing and strategy on this matter.
29 Posted 24/11/2015 at 22:10:27
He has never offered anything but 'front' and now, even those who 'argued' his case in the past (which appeared to be "he seems a nice feller, friendly like") must be able to see 'his slip is showing' (i.e: bollocks and bellend on full show)
As for his outrage to certain questions - genuinely fucking hilarious.
- 'They are disappointing questions' said chief Elstone on the Philharmonic stage. Then he went further - 'They are disgraceful questions. To paraphrase, they are asking if we are doing anything illegal or have our hands in the till. To be asked that series of questions is so disrespectful in the extreme. Those questions were wrong and shouldn't be asked. To repeatedly be asked about where we lend from and where Philip Green (retail magnate) is in all this is just wrong'
OH THE HUMANITY!!
1) No one asked 'What type of bills does your tart wear Bob?' Instead, Evertonians (nb: many with a financial stake in the club, a stake they are entitled to protect) asked entirely legitimate questions, given the culture of sleight-of-hand and smokescreen (that he is in large part responsible for) that surrounds our financial dealings.
2) Is Elstone aware of Philip 'it's in our Tina's name' Green's tax avoidance history? If bronzie-Bob wants to know what's genuinely 'disgraceful', it's loophole-exploiting, sweat-shop using, less than minimum-wage paying, morally bankrupt twats like Philip and Tina.
Bob can shove his outrage up his arse, it's Evertonians who should be outraged.
Outraged by the fact that the club is in the hands of bums and snake-oil salesmen, and that we're associated with venal pimps like the Greens.
30 Posted 24/11/2015 at 22:15:10
Easy! Become Kenwright's first line of defence and spout the same Bullshit.
It is absolutely outrageous that Elstone is speaking to the Council through the media and not picking his phone up and telling them where we are up to... never mind not submitting any proposals.
31 Posted 24/11/2015 at 22:35:00
The Mersey Millionaires, behaving like Meffs. What the fuck have we done to deserve these people?
I agree: Elstone's out of his depth, but it seems again like the messenger is getting shot to me.
People are saying last night's AGM, was a waste of time, but if it is, then the answer to my second paragraph should read, everything.
Why would a genuine Evertonian want to stay in charge of the club for so long, without the means to take us forward, either financially or without a long term plan?
Old ground, I know, but I'm lost.
32 Posted 24/11/2015 at 22:48:24
Please note, we filled Goodison for 12 out of 19 home league matches last season in a ground festooned with posts and pillars. The club has massive latent potential.
33 Posted 24/11/2015 at 22:58:45
No side appears to have any money.
End of story unless a miraculous pot appears from under someone's bed?
34 Posted 24/11/2015 at 23:05:44
35 Posted 24/11/2015 at 23:15:08
Suntan Bob couldn't run a stall on Greatie Market...
36 Posted 24/11/2015 at 23:15:08
37 Posted 24/11/2015 at 23:45:25
It's NOT saying they pay; they have to lead... but Liverpool Council haven't done a decent job for Liverpool City in the last 40 years, and will never do with the continuous Iiefficient party in charge.
38 Posted 24/11/2015 at 23:58:09
39 Posted 25/11/2015 at 01:44:09
And try being 'efficient' when the Tory Government is stripping funding down to the bare bones.
Skint + skint = skint (#32) is right.
40 Posted 25/11/2015 at 01:47:08
42 Posted 25/11/2015 at 02:19:06
Seems to me that the Council want a firm proposal to review and red-pen. Not particularly unreasonable. They're the gatekeepers here.
Everton want to discuss principles and have buy-in from the Council on the approach. Again, not particularly unreasonable if we're talking partnership here.
Of course, you'd hope that we'd be long past this stage by now and that doesn't reflect well on anyone.
Hopefully this little media outburst forces both parties to reflect on the lack of progress and agree on a plan.
43 Posted 25/11/2015 at 06:32:36
There's no evidence - on either side - that it will.
I have felt embarrassed on occasion to be an Everton fan. Yesterday reading a shitty tabloid paper online (I live overseas and it's not behind a paywall) was staggered to see they had coverage of our AGM, and the Stadium impasse. (Always assumed they didn't know who we were, the coverage is so minimal - apart from articles from Martin Samuel about why we should roll over and let Stones move).
Anyway, in the comments section, someone who I assume wasn't a troll but was a Blue, said the likes of KEIOC had ruined it for us. If they hadn't caused DK to collapse, we could've had every Tesco in the country selling Everton shirts...
I'm paraphrasing but really you couldn't make it up.
I really believe the DK episode fractured the fanbase. Maybe I'm getting old, but I can't remember such disunity before, even when Kings Dock was on the agenda.
44 Posted 25/11/2015 at 07:43:01
"You can fool all of the people some of the time.
You can fool some of the people all of the time.
You can't fool all of the people all of the time"
45 Posted 25/11/2015 at 09:07:32
We were the No 2 city in the UK in the 60s/70s but successive Councils doing their utmost to defy all Govt's initiatives, efficiency drives, meant places like Manchester taking the mantle whilst we have wallowed in self-pity.
46 Posted 25/11/2015 at 09:17:01
Matt (#41), I agree about DK fracturing the fan base, and is the reason I think I would sooner have a thief, than a liar. The club were told, umpteen times, that it was never going to happen, but what did they do?
Old ground I know, but that's what we're always going to be left with under the present regime.
47 Posted 25/11/2015 at 09:33:52
On the balance of evidence presented in public, my opinion is that LCC seem to be occupying the (slightly) higher moral ground. LCC did not initiate this scheme but are trying to assist and support. It is Everton who want the scheme and therefore they need to provide the necessary partners, finance and design to make it work.
I notice that there has been no mention of any partners in any of the statements. It seems that the club have boxed themselves into a corner with nobody willing to come to the party.
48 Posted 25/11/2015 at 10:23:04
49 Posted 25/11/2015 at 10:44:44
50 Posted 25/11/2015 at 11:22:50
It is like a person who owns a house that needs refurbishment but does not want to pay for the repairs himself but wants someone else to fix it up before it is sold.It is the same throughout this present reign.They tell us about their spending on transfers, but do not talk about the vast profits made on transfers out. We have made money at each transfer window yet we do not seem to ever have a transfer budget.
We supposedly had the money to buy Yarmolenko at the last window and that did not happen. Is this money still available to Roberto for January's window ?
The present shareholders have all made profits on the shares they own but when are they going to invest ?
We have not had a chairman ready to spend his money since Sir John Moores.
51 Posted 25/11/2015 at 11:31:31
52 Posted 25/11/2015 at 11:31:43
I've always advocated a new ground rather than redevelopment of Goodison, though I was opposed to the Kirkby move so the Walton Hall Park site seemed ideal but looks increasingly undeliverable.
The solution is simple in my mind. The houses and school surrounding Goodison could be bought up for just a few million pounds. The houses themselves are over a hundred years old and probably only have a limited lifespan now. There will always be people that don't want to sell, but then it's about price. Lobby the council to support compulsory purchase orders for the obstinate few that hang on.
If you want to redevelop and regenerate an area, why not make it the area in which you have been based for the past 123 years? God knows Walton is in need of it.
A phased approach to redeveloping Goodison should be the horse we choose to back, even if it takes 20 years to complete. It'd certainly be more development than has happened over the last 20.
As for Elstone, what more can be said? He admits to getting every decision right (even the best of us don't get it right every time) and has the cheek to call some of the AGM questions "disappointing." Perhaps Mr. Elstone needs reminding that the people asking these questions are the part-owners of the company he works for. Unfortunately I'm not a shareholder but I do wish the Shareholders association would put forward a vote of no confidence in Elstone and also in the directorship of the completely absent Robert Earl. Furthermore I would advocate the appointment of further non-executive directors from the world of business. We have too few voices and too little experience at board level of running a large enterprise with a worldwide brand.
Once again Elstone sang the praises of the Kitbag deal. I cannot believe that it is attractive and, even if it does bring in all available revenue, not having our merchandise available in more locations both inside and out of Liverpool does nothing to promote our brand. Where are the Everton stands and shirts at the airport and museums? Large sports retailers? National football museum 30 miles away?
53 Posted 25/11/2015 at 12:35:57
My thoughts are that he wasn't wealthy enough to let "integrity" question his role at the club in the way Birch and Wyness were able to do so (they walked). After all he was a modestly/well paid beancounter who had an opportunity to make himself financially secure by fronting the circus at Goodison.
What I find particularly offensive is the collective attitude towards supporters who have the intelligence to question them... They are arrogant enough to think their position of "power" can quash any unrest and a few technical financial terms can intimidate those with the audacity to question them.
Unfortunately for you, Mr Elstone, our fanbase has a great deal more intelligent people with more integrity and bravery than you. Get packing your bags and go and enjoy the little nest-egg your acquired doing the square root of zero. Leave this job to someone with brains, integrity and a plan.
54 Posted 25/11/2015 at 12:46:03
The pressure was on and the club knew that they would be questioned on the whole stadium issue... So, WHP was announced to a grand fanfare, and all awkward questions avoided. How convenient?
It's been known for many months that this project was going nowhere. The council hinted at it several times as nothing of substance was being produced by the main driver... EFC. Outline Planning deadlines came and went. Nothing... hence the recent ultimatum to put up or shut up.
The bottom line is that there is no substance in these proposals. Yes, WHP is easily big enough to accommodate a football stadium... that's the sum total of conclusions that can be gleaned from the past 18 months worth of 1.5 days a week committed to this proposal by our CEO. What's that? Approximately 𧵘,000 worth from him alone. A junior school pupil could've managed that in a few mins with a map of Liverpool.
What we saw on Monday was like crass gamesmanship by Elstone. Desperately trying to shift the blame for another fundamentally flawed proposal.
Everyone asked where the funding would come from for WHP... No obvious enabling development making the only real source of funding from naming rights. Was this just a packaging exercise to sell the club for the highest profit? There doesn't appear to be any logical or viable reason to prefer WHP ahead of a phased redevelopment...... and the club still can't justify the decision processes to date.
55 Posted 25/11/2015 at 12:52:50
Let's seriously look at the only two viable options to Everton FC: 1) regenerate Goodison Park one stand at a time; 2) ground share. Didn't the architect who regenerated Twickenham once look at Goodison Park and say that it could be done?
Those are the only two options that I see open unless we sell to a multi-billionaire owner and Bill relinquishes control of his trainset.
56 Posted 25/11/2015 at 12:57:57
Everton want the council to give them the land, fund or part-fund the development to ease the financial strain on the club, and then watch as Everton, a privately run business, owned and run by millionaire businessmen, rake in the profits on the back of public money?
You couldn't make it up if you fucking tried.
57 Posted 25/11/2015 at 13:13:02
The lad is going Psycho about the North by Northwest proposals.
Elstone certainly looks like the Wrong Man going against the Man who Knew too Much. Ah well I Confess that I hope the council do enough To Catch a Thief!!
58 Posted 25/11/2015 at 13:38:02
59 Posted 25/11/2015 at 13:54:41
60 Posted 25/11/2015 at 13:57:56
61 Posted 25/11/2015 at 14:43:46
62 Posted 25/11/2015 at 15:00:49
Rob Elstone: CEO. CEOs lie.
It's their jobs.
63 Posted 25/11/2015 at 15:09:44
I was interested to hear that redeveloping Goodison is now an alternative, as I do recall a presentation by Elstone (which looks like the only thing he has ever put any effort into) proving why Goodison cannot possibly be developed and if it was then the capacity would be lower.
No Plan B again.
64 Posted 25/11/2015 at 15:57:09
WHP was always a means to an end; the club has never shown any serious intent other than a show of interest if it could be funded by someone else. They are running out of time and excuses: public disagreement or lies? Where is the truth? Given the club's previous, I know who I believe in this matter... Is Elstone so commercially inept that he seriously expects the council to do all the work, provide the funds and give it too them for no cash up front?
Does the lack of investment please explain this to me slowly, Mr Elstone, you have dulled my cutting edge of perception mean that the club continues to seek investment for what in exchange? A seat on the board? Shares perhaps? A long-term interest-free loan? EXACTLY what are the terms of investment are you looking for? WHAT are the Directors going to offer in exchange for any said investment given that none of them wants to dilute or sell their shares?
Smoke and Mirrors, deception and perception, meaningless words with no intent. This is what we have running the club.
Without the EPL TV rights monies, we would be down the toilet. For those who say how well the club has been run, such is our total lack of commercial acumen and appalling lack of ANY business plan or strategy to improve the club's commercial footing, where are our assets now? Why haven't we repurchased or offered to repurchase Finch Farm?
No, it's a one-trick pony event, sell and be dammed, at the highest price they can get; there is no future plan because they do not intend to be here in the future... not their problem so don't worry about it.
But we will be here... and the sooner they are gone, the better. Take your money and run.
For those who say, "Be careful of what you wish for", well, if someone has the £100M plus to fork out on a majority shareholding, then they are far more likely to have the business knowledge to secure the future of the club than what we have at the moment..
I still believe this AGM exercise was a front, a PR stunt to appease rather than showing the shareholders the respect they deserve. The club will be sold, I think it's going to happen soon and I think it all comes down to Bill's health; he doesn't need the hassle and I cannot see the rest of the board hanging around if he sells.
The wind is changing direction.
65 Posted 25/11/2015 at 16:03:33
Half season tickets are selling themselves as the team is doing well. If they keep it up, next season's tickets will sell just as well and the board can disgracefully pull out of WHP and try and get Lidl or Aldi to build us a new stadium when they open their next store in Skem, Wigan, Ormskirk, on the Wirral, or somewhere else local!
66 Posted 25/11/2015 at 16:11:41
Now I realise why there are no comments on the video. "Submitted for approval." Oh well!
67 Posted 25/11/2015 at 16:30:06
Beware a spinning Anderson!
68 Posted 25/11/2015 at 16:37:51
69 Posted 25/11/2015 at 16:47:24
70 Posted 25/11/2015 at 16:52:32
In relation to the the stadiums, there is a section on it that outlines risks of development in a piecemeal fashion to the greater regeneration of the area and also highlights the requirement for $500m for private investment. This is assumed for LFC as it states that EFC has not been assessed at that point.
Irrespective of that, it can be seen that the council operates as a facilitator of partners and not a funding vehicle.
71 Posted 25/11/2015 at 17:13:13
I've just come out into retirement from last 15 years or so on regeneration projects in South of England, and in all cases the Council have facilitated the regeneration with their knowledge of investors, developers and infrastructure experts.
As I have mentioned above in a few replies, I don't think Everton expect Council capital funding, they expect the Council to pull together the whole regeneration players and Everton will have to pay for their share. But their share will be shared amongst other investors the roads, the environment costs, the utility installation costs, the land etc, all which adds up to a significant saving vs going alone.
I just don't think Liverpool Council are up to it at all.
72 Posted 25/11/2015 at 17:15:02
But some of their share ...... Everton will have to pay for the stadium.
73 Posted 25/11/2015 at 17:21:40
However, LCC are interested and it is the responsibility of the local authority to explore the idea. I live in Widnes and a few years ago a brand new and extensive retail area was built. This was not progressed by Marks and Spencer approaching Wilkinsons and Matalan and the rest to see if they were interested, it was progressed by the local council exploring the matter with well known retailers.
If you put Everton FC in the place of Marks and Spencer in my example above, then why should it be up to the club to produce a plan? If LCC are interested in regenerating an area of the city they are responsible for, then it is up to them to take a lead not the potential participants in a retail development and stadium complex. Like all local authorities, LCC will have experts in this field who would perform the same kind of task as they did for Liverpool One (although on a smaller scale); Everton FC would not be expected to possess that expertise.
What I will criticise Everton for is the fact that they are not saying "Look, this is what we want (a stadium) and this is the amount of cash we can put into it. Can you help us, as LCC, to achieve this ambition?" If that is all Anderson wants then fine. But I do believe he only wants a scheme presented to him that he can rubber-stamp. That is lazy and not good enough for the Mayor of the City.
74 Posted 25/11/2015 at 17:38:05
The point being made was that there clearly are regeneration goals that Liverpool Council have a responsibility for. This being directly contradictory to the claims made.
How does it relate to Everton...? In terms of this scheme and Elstone's comments, it underscores the fact that there IS a responsibility placed on Liverpool Council, amongst other parties, to deliver regeneration in this area, outside the scope of Everton's involvement.
It is then not a case of the club trying to get the council to pay for a new ground for us while the poor starve in the streets. It's Everton saying: "If you are going to regenerate this area, we'll come on board and we will chip in if we can factor x, y and z into the scheme."
The bottom line is, if the council stick to their regeneration targets, Everton can work in that framework and contribute... If the council aren't going to be able to fund their own programme, though, then there's nothing on the books. The next move, either way, is for the council to say whether they are planning to progress with the regeneration.
75 Posted 25/11/2015 at 18:00:09
I think the document outlined a good vision of what the council wanted to achieve, but that was 2010, it probably took a couple of years to write it as well, so you could say it was written in the midst of the GFC without the knowledge of what was to come financially.
Then in came this government and really it dried up the likelihood of private investments on the scale that was needed to regenerate an area particularly in the middle of a depression. I doubt frankly that the council can fund bin collections at the moment never mind a substantial commitment to regeneration. Where does that leave the club?
I believe the intent of the council has not changed; that they want to regenerate but need a cohesive plan from prospective partners to build upon the council's vision. A point worth noting too is that it's not just about the money but resources as well... how many cuts in headcount to the council has there been in the last 5 years?
The club are waiting for a plan they can fit their piece of the jigsaw into, the council are awaiting the same piece so they can build a picture around it.
The club would surely have known what the councils expectations were and vice versa. At any meeting into any proposals each would have set out the Action requirements of each party. So who has fulfilled their commitments or not?
All it needs is for one party (Elstone) to back up his comments with the facts that EFC have met their obligations under any letter of understanding or even outline agreement. Not hard... he has already pissed on his chips so what does he have to lose? He can only gain credibility... unless, of course...
76 Posted 25/11/2015 at 18:05:01
I wasn't debunking your views on the situation, I was genuinely asking for the location of the Everton stuff in your document.
I agree with your view to some extent, given the public spat between Mr Elstone and Mr Anderson; from the outside, it seems that the City have either:
A) No plans for Everton to piggyback onto a North Liverpool regeneration scheme;
B) Given Everton FC deadline(s) to submit plans and costings for a new stadium to be included in the regeneration scheme and Everton FC have failed to submit them on time.
I was rather concerned that Mr Elstone openly stated that he would rather the whole stadium situation had remained private, which I would have thought was wholly unrealistic given the possible involvement of the Local Council among others.
I would suggest that, if nothing transpires in the next six months, Everton FC will be stuck at Goodison Park until another scheme comes along.
77 Posted 25/11/2015 at 18:23:14
Surely by now, Elstone knows how much we can put into the scheme and therefore how much more other partners will have to subsidise Everton Football Club. It seems to me the Club expect the Council to get the partners and then get the partners to finance the Club. To me, totally out of order Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and the thought of Liverpool City Council putting money into the Directors' pockets to the detriment of the people of Liverpool is unbelievable.
I remember Elstone being given an easy ride by the support at the time of DK as he'd recently been appointed and the presumption was that he was taking the flack for the incompetence of the Board.
I think now it is plain to see how much of a snake-oil salesman he really is...
78 Posted 25/11/2015 at 19:02:04
While LCC and EFC were trying to identify possible sites for a stadium why did the club not have at least outline plans drawn up to present to the council? There you are, Joe, a piece of land to fit that please.
If you could get us a couple of acres for retail partners all the better. Oh, and by the way, we'll take you on as a partner so we will expect some input from the city.
79 Posted 25/11/2015 at 19:25:57
But it is inconceivable that no one would have told him, though not impossible. So I would conclude sadly that the fault is with EFC. There are no plans, not even an outline for WHP. And, at any rate, given the planning process, it would take years and years for us to get permission.
If that is the case, then this Chief Executive is truly out of his depth, and must go. But that will not happen.
In fact, the only way we will ever get a new stadium is via heroics on the pitch, and such success that people will be queuing up to buy us.
That means we will be relying on RM and the lads to deliver. And that is not impossible!
80 Posted 25/11/2015 at 19:29:26
Some of the political bigotry in evidence is so typical I'm just surprised nobody's yet blamed Margaret Thatcher!
The austerity we're in is not the fault of the evil Tories the mess was made by the financial stupidity of the Blair/Brown-led Labour Government including leading the country into war in Iraq & Afghanistan based upon its own pack of lies!!!
Where else could a football club be expected to plan and design a regeneration scheme for large metropolitan area? All major regeneration schemes in the UK have been encouraged and facilitated by the relevant council not by the local football club.
81 Posted 25/11/2015 at 19:29:30
82 Posted 25/11/2015 at 19:32:11
Elstone out!! BK as well.
83 Posted 25/11/2015 at 19:43:26
I can see your view but do you not remember that there was a global meltdown in the financial markets, which I'm pretty sure wasn't the sole responsibility of the Government of the day.
If Everton FC have plans and have enough finance to at least cover the costs of starting the project, why haven't they submitted them to the relevant bodies?
84 Posted 25/11/2015 at 19:45:17
Keith, that unnameable witch went after Liverpool (and other so-called red zones in the UK) with a vengeance. Her first term was dedicated to "breaking the back" of her enemies, ie, the unions... and, lo and behold, where were the unions the strongest?
Liverpool, South Yorkshire, Scotland, the North East and South Wales. Which are the most deprived areas in the UK right now? Coincidence or not?
85 Posted 25/11/2015 at 19:54:01
The council has to publicise its regeneration plans then seek partners to come on board. It would then select the most suitable 'partner' propositions to benefit it's planned regeneration scheme. The council / mayor are trying to embarrass the club into putting in place a regeneration plan.
What would the Mayor / Council's position be, I wonder, if Everton were bought out tomorrow? Bees around honey!!!!!
EFC will only progress this stadium IF they behave themselves, be good little children, and make the 'political' powers look good...
Déjà vu indeed...
87 Posted 25/11/2015 at 20:05:00
I look at Goodison and see no evidence. In any dispute on this subject between Elstone and the Mayor, I know who I believe.
88 Posted 25/11/2015 at 20:06:07
Prescot Cables are a local football club... ditto St Helens Town if they are still going; we are not. EFC is a massive plus for Merseyside, so it is in the local authority's interest to work with us, and vice versa. It has NOT happened, so we must ask why. And we probably all know the answer.
By the way, please do not expect too much from local councils either. I was once called at 4pm, and asked whether I could sort out a submission for a grant from the EU if the local authority sent me all the details asap.
When I asked when they wanted it, they said 10 am the next morning.
They eventually got seven million quid, I charged them for working all night, instead of a percentage,so who was the fool then?
Anyway my point is this. No one is infallible.
90 Posted 25/11/2015 at 20:22:14
91 Posted 25/11/2015 at 20:28:13
It was owned by a third party and Everton had a long-term lease in place. So I don't understand why the council use this point.
I am not defending EFC at all, we are a joke of a club run by clowns. Elstone should quit a long with the rest of board. Great on the pitch, but behind the scenes the foundations are so weak.
92 Posted 25/11/2015 at 20:34:04
The only thing that the council were ever supplying was the prime site, and potential partners in the form of small leisure/retail and residential developers. That's it!
Meaning whatever else happened in WHP, the club was always going to have to cover most, and probably all, of the stadium cost. Margins are notoriously tight in housing development and the retail element was only ever going to be small too... Therefore., this was only ever a scheme that perhaps a new wealthier owner could deliver.
To blame the council is ludicrous... they have delivered their part of the bargain: offering a site, risking controversy and criticism in doing so. They provided a residential developer too. They've had to wait over a year and the club haven't even submitted outline plans.
The club might have expected to attract investors/buyers if they had site and planning permission in place... and thus maximise their profit. It doesn't look like this has been forthcoming and they have been forced into another failure.
Unfortunately, the problem is the fundamentally flawed approach... from start to finish, a complete disregard for the basics in stadium planning. Starting with an obviously unaffordable solution, and then trying to make it fit the problem. Resulting in an all too familiar outcome. Yet some still blame the council. Bizarre!!
93 Posted 25/11/2015 at 20:51:07
All ridiculous and if there was ever any real possibility of WHP working (which most of us never gave a fart chance to anyway), it's certainly nail-in-coffin time.
So back to EFC's statement at the AGM if WHP doesn't happen, they said they would revisit the redevelopment of Goodison Park. I just hope the powers that be might finally seriously look into what many on here have been saying for about a decade!
With WHP dead, the focus is back on the board NOW WHAT?
94 Posted 25/11/2015 at 21:00:14
What we would give now for a man of his calibre at the helm instead of likes of Widow Twankie, Woods, Earl (does he ever visit Goodison?) and Elstone (I'm seriously embarrassed for him).
Give me strength!
Not only could I run the club more efficiently and successfully than these clowns but I'm pretty sure so could my mother who sadly suffers from dementia.
95 Posted 25/11/2015 at 21:35:04
The council have been unequivocal in their stance, they do not intend to contribute financially to this latest disaster. So, can we just put this one to bed? Or is the brass-necked CEO going to carry on with his delusional facade?
The club need to think seriously about making a formal announcement that WHP is no longer viable, without placing the blame at anyone's door. If they do insist on dragging out this undeliverable scheme, then every day will do further damage to their already shredded reputations. I cannot think what good it would do to keep on announcing "Our 24/7 search for enabling partners & investors is still continuing and will never diminish" - Minutes taken from the Everton AGM, 2032.
My advice would be to put yourselves out of your misery, and put all your energy into a deliverable, redeveloped Goodison Park. It's becoming embarrassing.
96 Posted 25/11/2015 at 21:56:46
It's not for EFC to take the primary responsibility for initialising the plan for the regeneration of part of our city.
The council must commit some financial support to any regeneration, not necessarily to build and buy materials, but rather in the time of its people to strategise, promote and market its regeneration. It will then stand a chance of attracting partners to deliver their vision (like EFC).
Bottom line is any city regeneration scheme must be initially driven by the council, that's what they are elected to do. If they don't do that, they fail the electorate.
The council looks lazy to me.
97 Posted 25/11/2015 at 22:01:29
We have robbed Peter to pay Paul, ever since Kenwright borrowed the money, to purchase his shares. This has been the only plan that The Chairman, has ever had.
98 Posted 25/11/2015 at 22:06:18
Are you saying that the Council cannot ask a partner to show them proof of their commitment? Are EFC not at some stage required to show stadium design thus land required, and proof of financial support for their plans?
The Council would certainly fail the electorate if it subsidised EFC financially in these difficult times and thereby gave this Board a potentially heavy payday.
Seems to me it's the Club that are lazy .
99 Posted 25/11/2015 at 22:46:51
100 Posted 25/11/2015 at 23:04:00
Under Kenwright's tenure, it now looks increasingly likely we've gone through 3 failed ground moves. I doubt if there's another club in world football whose fans have been strung along like ours.
If you didn't laugh you'd cry. What a shabby little outfit we must look to the rest of football and to think there's people who still come on and defend Kenwright. Laughable... it really is.
101 Posted 25/11/2015 at 23:35:36
If I remember right, Bill Kenwright, after saying for years that there was no alternative to Kirkby, suddenly saw, as he drove past on the way to Goodison, Wally Hall Park as a great potential venue for a new ground.
Again, if I can remember aright, the Council said that they would keen to help, in the form of land and perhaps see if local housing associations would be willing to come in.
I think it was Elstone who pronounced one fine day, that he'd become really excited about a potential site for a new Stadium. I don't think it was ever the Council who come to the club and said, "Jump on board we've got half a billion together for the regeneration of the North End."
To me, this is just another chapter in the story telling to the gullible that's been happening for years from this crew in charge of the club.
Elstone, to me has just threwn a bit of muck and hoped it would stick to the proposed partner... Liverpool City Council. I think it is just a way of diverting us from the truth, which is Everton Football Club will never build a stadium while this bunch are in charge. No, we will only walk into a stadium that someone is going to build for us.
What really got to me was not the sly blame-game but the half-hearted reference to any alternative, should the stadium not go ahead.
Elstone mumbled something on the lines of "There wasn't much that could be done with the main stand, they'd had some "experts" in who said about all that could be done was increase the size of the Park End... and that didn't seem worthwhile!!!
Well I think that is worse than pathetic. It is saying that if Wally Hall Park falls through, because of the lousy rotten Council or whoever else we can blame, there's nothing else to be done!!! Appalling.
Is he saying that, no matter whose fault (if anyone's) WHP doesn't come off then we just "Carry on Dreaming?"
To not have any form of alternative plan, is frankly disgraceful.
Tom Hughes has many times shown how Goodison could be redeveloped. It might not be the perfect solution but it is massively more constructive and positive to say, we will make Goodison Park into a 55,000-seater stadium... than saying "can't be arsed."
102 Posted 25/11/2015 at 02:16:06
104 Posted 26/11/2015 at 02:33:11
More likely the council have announced a desire to regenerate and asked for parties interested in participating to submit their statement of interest and later provide their requirements in the form of some initial plans.
It seems the club have indicated their interest but not submitted any details that the council can use to incorporate into an overall plan with other interested parties requirements to progress the scheme.
105 Posted 26/11/2015 at 03:40:15
Our chairman and board then pull out of a hat, a buyer for the club, paying well over the valuation with the new stadium built.
Will our board then donate money back to LCC or ringfence any for the future of this club? Not a chance.
The sooner this board goes the better, but they will not go, for they know Everton fans will stick by the club and, to put it mildly, they have us by the knackers, and will stay loyal. No matter how much bullshit they spout.
106 Posted 26/11/2015 at 06:02:08
LCC did their bit.....
In the same time LFC decided to redevelop, submitted plans and are currently building one of the biggest stands in Europe. We haven't even submitted initial outline plans..... why?
108 Posted 26/11/2015 at 07:40:51
In fact this year it's gone up 㿞k, to 𨂐k, which doesn't look like the council have helped at all. They might be a good landlord, but financially nothing changed here as an investor/tenant relationship Although I could be wrong.
The only way I can see the stadium ever moving forward is:-
a) phased development of Goodison, our only option.
b) unlikely big money takeover and new stadium
c) they cash in on Stones, Lukaku, Deulofeu, and Barkley.
109 Posted 26/11/2015 at 09:01:41
110 Posted 26/11/2015 at 10:05:55
How have the Council not helped EFC? If LCC hadn't stepped in and bought the land (thereby helping both the City and EFC) EFC would presumably still be paying £1½ million per annum in rent, for the rest of the 50-year lease.
111 Posted 26/11/2015 at 12:45:55
112 Posted 26/11/2015 at 12:56:31
Both parties want something for nothing.
Everton want to get a free(-ish) stadium as part of a regeneration plan.
LCC want to get free(-ish) regeneration as part of a stadium build plan.
Neither party have a pot to piss in and that's where it all comes to a grinding halt.
113 Posted 26/11/2015 at 13:09:15
114 Posted 26/11/2015 at 13:21:48
Earlier this week, I was in Bolton and in an exchange of football talk was told "We used to be a sound club before we moved to that soulless monstrosity on the motorway." The fact that their chairman has just written off a 176M debt the consequence of building that monstrosity has gained him little respect it seems. So, just perhaps, we should stop fretting over BK's failure to make a similar investment.
But take it from me, Colin, you are one of the few who laugh about our club old ground or not!
115 Posted 26/11/2015 at 13:31:49
I do think that a solution could be (viably) found, whereby the ground is effectively shunted southwards, building over the car park and fan zone space behind the Park End. This would mean that new stands, with all of the corporate stuff necessary to finance it, plus more seating could be incorporated into the new Gwladys Street and Park End Stands, removing the restricted views. We'd have to live with the restrictions down Bullens Road... it's part of the old girl's charm!
The ground would retain it's bear pit atmosphere... worth a goal to the Blues. St Luke's Church effectively makes that corner useless anyway, and any loss at the Gwladys St corner with Bullens Road could be added on at the other end, plus a tag on to the Main Stand at the Park End. Loss of parking at the Park End could be made up by building a multi-story on a smaller footprint.
It's worth looking at, at least! Any TW architects out there with a better technical opinion? The club has never, and will never, on it's own, be able to raise independent funds to pay for a new build, and rich foreigners won't touch the club with the current ground legacy. Man City got a huge windfall with the Commonwealth Stadium, as have West Ham at the Olympic stadium ,or else they'd be exactly in the same hole as us.
Stop wasting time, Elstone and Kenwright, and cut your cloth accordingly.
116 Posted 26/11/2015 at 14:08:16
117 Posted 26/11/2015 at 14:09:12
I particularly agree with your comment about cutting our cloth. We had our chance of a world class stadium in a world class site; and I can't see us ever getting another chance.
If you can't afford a new house then do up the one you've got bit by bit. That's what the other lot are doing (and have done for donkeys!) over the other side of the park.
118 Posted 26/11/2015 at 22:25:46
Partners should be shortlisted by LCC using a predefined scoring method, with results published in an open and transparent process. All above board and AUDITABLE.
119 Posted 27/11/2015 at 07:42:39
The problem is that this is a suburban park of only limited development potential..... and as I said already a very contentious prospect to start with. Therefore this was never going to be the enabling cash-cow needed to fund the stadium. Everyone knew this from day one.... and several questioned it at the time of the announcement. So there can be no accusing fingers pointed at LCC now.
There is no scope for substantial retail or leisure.... and the residential element is of suburban scale low- to mid-range housing only. There is no multi-storey commercial, no high-end residential. It is what it has always been... and no-one should complain or muddy the water now.
120 Posted 27/11/2015 at 08:07:04
Councils have dedicated companies set up to do this, in Liverpool's case, it's Liverpool Vision. This is a Company that is lead by the Mayor and other councillors.
Check out their 2015-2018 business plan. No mention of either football team. Their strategic priorities for regeneration of the city are set out in this document and it wouldn't exactly encourage a Premier League football club. Their priorities lie elsewhere.
This is the hub of it, LCC is not very interested in working with EFC, it doesn't fit with their strategic plans to help the business sectors, like the port and tourism. Could they go out on a limb for EFC? Not with the council's finances as they are (they will say to our club), they have to dedicate their resources to their core strategies. But the Mayor wouldn't want to be so overtly blunt with an electorate that contains a large proportion of Blues; at the end of the day he's a politician. Never trust one of them.
LCC sets the agenda for regeneration, they create the framework, and businesses then follow. If the framework is not there for a football club regeneration plan, it ain't EFC's fault.
121 Posted 27/11/2015 at 08:44:31
But they don't fit in with the "big payday for no outlay" exit strategy wanted by all the usual suspects...
122 Posted 27/11/2015 at 09:20:06
The club approached the council for a site.... The council provided the one they wanted. They also provided a potential development partner. At every meeting it has been the club that is the driver. They haven't met any deadlines for preliminary or outline plans.
In the same time scale LFC have applied for planning permission for redevelopment, designed and started building one of the biggest stands in Europe. We haven't delivered even the basics. The council have been asking for months..... nothing.
Why? Because this was never a flyer with the current ownership... it was only ever a way to avert questioning at last year's AGM and/or a way to package the club for a high profit sale... and it has now been found out.
The council went out of their way to support the club with the training ground fiasco... and previously with Kings Dock. So no-one can say they haven't helped us.
123 Posted 27/11/2015 at 09:30:30
So why is Elstone moaning about the Council? Surely the Council put up the strategy and the partners express their interest. However, there must come a time when the partners have to commit both with plans and finance.
As far as I know apart from this yet again ring fenced £2 million EFC have shown nothing. Another embarrassing stadium move failure which will continue as long as we put nothing into it.
124 Posted 27/11/2015 at 10:09:27
We hear that by government edict, this council tax is likely to rise by 22% next year primarily to cover escalating costs in elderly care. And as one who lives in the city and has a parent relying on this service, so be it.
I suspect that many who call for a council handout are neither Liverpool tax-payers nor regular attendees at Goodison Park so, for them, talk is cheap. The truth is that since his KD failure, BK has sat on his hands in the expectation that either his retail chums or the local government would come to his rescue and it hasn't happened. And why should it have done?
With just a modicum of foresight, phased re-development of the Old Lady could have been almost completed by now, perhaps funded by 'a stadium improvement levy' applied to all tickets since the beginning of the millennium. But that would have taken vision and planning so sadly lacking in this 'shadow' board of Everton FC.
125 Posted 27/11/2015 at 10:29:26
It seems that is what we have done and then failed to deliver the plans. But no worries, Elstone says they are all ready and raring to go so it should only be a matter of weeks.
126 Posted 27/11/2015 at 14:16:29
127 Posted 27/11/2015 at 14:23:13
As for the idea that it was to hoodwink potential buyers, I think that's simply ridiculous. Any business knows that a potential buyer would carry out thorough due diligence before proceeding and any such ghost project would be picked up in a matter of minutes.
Conspiracy theories gone mad.
128 Posted 27/11/2015 at 14:35:48
Strategic business plans like that of Liverpool Vision are not put together for no reason. They set the agenda for the future and critically, these plans are budgeted accordingly. If a major regeneration plan is proposed that is outside the scope of the 3 year regeneration plans for our city, the proposer will want comfort that LCC are prepared to set aside additional, previously unfunded, financial support. Such financial support is not for building the stadium but the time of council and Liverpool Vison execs and employees to work on this project, rather than one of their priorities.
LCC don't look like they want to help us by providing the necessary commitment in time and resource via their regeneration company.
129 Posted 27/11/2015 at 15:37:59
Water off a duck's back? These are the same people who spat the dummy and banned AGMs for the first time in the club's history. Hardly water off a duck's back...
As regards the WHP proposals, there was much speculation before last year's AGM regarding the lack of progress on the stadium front. This was one of the drivers in the shareholders forcing the reintroduction of AGMs. The club knew this and, lo and behold, WHP was announced to a great fanfare.
It is not a conspiracy theory to suggest that stadium developments have been announced or started by club owners in the past to try to bolster the selling price. Several clubs have done that... but the fact of the matter is this is the third scheme in tatters... and it's always someone else's fault... or is that conspiracy theory too?
130 Posted 27/11/2015 at 16:10:27
131 Posted 27/11/2015 at 19:37:00
Liverpool Vision is not the only regeneration agency in Liverpool by a long mark and in anycase their remit has been predominantly confined to the city centre for most of their history... so it's hardly a surprise that football or WHP is not included at present. Which is reinforced by the fact that LFC have attracted external investment for their football-related proposals and are also not mentioned... and all in the same time-scale and window as we have supposedly been working on ours. Except of course their stand is actually taking shape.
I doubt that you'll find the Finch Farm acquisition in their portfolio either... but that transaction took place as have several major developments around the city region that will not be in any way connected to either LV or Liverpool LEP or the old NWDA.
So I believe it is you who has been highly speculative in connecting or associating Liverpool Vision's apparent disinterest with that of LCC. They have done their bit in offering the site...The club has not committed to anything or met any planning timeline and this was flagged up for months... and at no point until the AGM has the club pointed an accusing finger at LCC. Why?
Well, once again the questions were already lined up, this time they were literally listed in advance by the Shareholder's Association. No fanfare this time.... just realisation that they haven't delivered even the preliminaries. No conspiracy, just simple facts.
132 Posted 27/11/2015 at 20:19:47
I think in the case of WHP the Council have absolutely no case to answer. Any blame for the fiasco thus far lies fairly and squarely with the Club.
From start to present, this has been a bit of a PR exercise that now, when questions need to be answered, the Club are looking at something or someone to deflect their own incompetence. The present board continue to invest nothing from their own pockets and seek to blame everyone but themselves.
Again, for the umpteenth time, our esteemed local newspaper, the champion of the people, have failed pathetically to ask the Club serious questions regarding this embarrassing matter. Why should they, when the treble gin and tonics next weekend may be in jeopardy?
133 Posted 27/11/2015 at 23:19:54
The club has gone from one of the biggest in the country a few years ago to a mid-table average club in the stagnating years since BK and company arrived. While they are still here, the club will continue to stand still and be overtaken by just about everyone else.
They have no idea what to do next and never have had intention of moving forward... they are losers who will never win anything at all.
134 Posted 28/11/2015 at 09:34:24
Why? because they stand to recover the money in 5.5 years time from the increased turnover that stand will generate. After that it's pure profit going into the team, about £21 million per year, which is more than it would cost for us to redevelop Park End.
It makes me think that the terms of the Pru loan that prevented the Park End office/retail development (to be funded by others of course) from happening, also prevents the Club from redeveloping themselves until it is paid off.
135 Posted 28/11/2015 at 11:23:36
It amazes me how some fans still believe anything that comes out their mouths. They've saved millions over the years by pretending that they are interested or even capable of delivering a new stadium.
136 Posted 28/11/2015 at 13:41:06
138 Posted 28/11/2015 at 14:14:12
I don't think you should compare Manchester Council, Man City and their owners with the situation with WHP. It seems to me they have no comparisons.
139 Posted 28/11/2015 at 16:07:08
And our council has helped facilitate Liverpool's expansion on their current site, and took the controversial decision to offer EFC a public park..... making it part of their UDP.
The major difference between City's developments is that they are on a site close to the city centre with scope for other commercial developments surrounding it.... plus of course the council own the stadium too.... so they have more than a vested interest. WHP was never going to be a similar scheme in any sense..... For one it's too far from the commercial hub and secondly it's not as big a site. There can be no major retail development and a working class residential area is what it is.
The club knew this from day one.
140 Posted 28/11/2015 at 21:26:33
The council should be doing everything possible to encourage and help EFC. Now maybe EFC aren't doing as much as they could in the eyes of the council, but the last thing LCC should be doing is calling out one of their largest businesses which could be prepared to invest 㾶millions into a regeneration scheme. The council should be schmoozing EFC, not the other way around. But they're not because LCC has set out its vision for regeneration and they don't see football has a key role to play.
Manchester CC on the other hand take a different view.
141 Posted 29/11/2015 at 05:44:58
You seem to be trying to twist the facts to defend the indefensible here.
The club have had over 15 years to formulate a strategy to resolve its stadium issues. In the same period, ALL other clubs in the entire Football League have invested and delivered more to resolve their individual future stadium needs, even the absolute minnows, and definitely ALL of our so-called peers and rivals. Put it this way: Man City did more at Maine Road than we have done at Goodison Park... nevermind what they've done since. Some clubs have rebuilt twice.
In the same time, the council (even under different leadership) offered the Kings Dock with major enabling developments and finance on one of Europe's prime development sites... only to be seriously let down. They then invited the club to submit plans for redevelopment stating that they would be receptive to footprint expansion, only to receive no enquiries both before and after the Destination Kirkby debacle.
The council helped leverage a deal for the Bestway loop site with potential enabling partners... again, only for the club to rebuke them and the Bestway officials, who remarked at the time that they'd never been so poorly and unprofessionally treated and could not do business with EFC.
More recently, the council bailed the club out when they were threatened with having their training ground sold from under them... even letting the club rent it back at a 30+% reduced rate, using taxpayers money in area outside their jurisdiction (which was viewed by many as political suicide).
So I think you need to add significantly more stress to the "the club could do more" and less to the deficiencies of LCC... who do have a city to administer and a vastly reduced budget to do it with.
Manchester City Council have not acted any differently. They had an edge-of-city-centre site to develop and a gifted stadium to rent out... more importantly, they also had a partner who could deliver (even before the Arabs arrived).
WHP is not edge of city-centre and has nothing like the development potential of Eastlands and never will. If the club didn't realise it when they asked for it, they need shooting as everyone in the AGM asked that question: "Where is the enabler?"
If Everton are such a vibrant and important business, it should have the wherewithal to plan and deliver its own proposals. The problem has always been that this board want something for nothing... and they want/need someone else to do all the work and pay for it.
This is the third time that they have got it completely wrong. At no point have they fully explored the option of redevelopment... with only a token gesture offered at the time of the DK ballot which was an afterthought in response to KEIOC'S efforts. This should've been the first step in the process...
142 Posted 30/11/2015 at 07:48:47
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.